1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains generally to the field of dispensing, and more particularly to a fluid dispenser which includes a securing device maintaining the dispenser in an open, closed, or manually controlled state.
2. Description of the Related Art
The primary tools for applying paint, many which have been used by homeowners for centuries, include brushes, rags, cloth and even woolen or fur applicators. When painting a small-to-mid size surface, such as a room wall or the like, such techniques have always been reasonably economical. In fact, there are few homes that are not cluttered with a collection of various pint, quart and gallon paint cans that contain the various paint mixtures of previous painting projects. Often times, there will also be a clutter of various sizes and ages of brushes, frequently stiffened by old paint that was never completely cleaned from the brush prior to storage.
While this approach has been used for a very long time, and is extremely commonplace in the vast majority of homes, the paint can and brush techniques have suffered from a number of undesirable shortcomings. For example, when a project is finished, such as painting a room, whatever quantity of paint remains in the can will most desirably be stored. In the event that at some later date damage occurs to the painted walls or ceiling, theoretically the homeowner may simply repair any physical damage and then re-apply the saved paint. With a high quality paint, this could be years later, and the colors will still be expected to match exactly with the paint that was originally applied. The same theory applies in the case of minor remodeling or redecorating, such as the installation of a new light fixture that covers a slightly different amount of the adjacent wall surface. Unfortunately, the paint stored in ordinary paint cans has a relatively limited shelf life. The air gap present above the liquid paint acts as a large source of oxygen, which invariably leads to a degradation of the paint. Typically, at least the surface layer of the paint will harden and be unsuitable. The amount of paint which is lost to this process is frequently dependent upon some complex combination of how full the paint can is, the ingredients of the paint, and how long the can is stored. Consequently, the homeowner will never know quite what to expect when the can is opened, even only a few months later. Worse, even if there is still some usable paint in the can, it is well-known that the pigments that are contained in most paints are more dense than the base. When the paint is first stored, the pigments consequently settle out, often before much hardening of the surface has occurred. Consequently, when the homeowner strips the hardened surface off of the paint and then mixes the remaining usable paint in the ordinary manner, the concentration of pigments has unintentionally been increased, potentially affecting the match between the original paint and the paint now remaining in the can.
Not only is paint difficult to store in ordinary paint cans and buckets, but used brushes are equally difficult to store. A high quality brush has the unique ability to hold a great deal of paint within the interstices between the bristles. As paint is applied to a surface, the brush tip will desirably draw paint gradually from the bristles, and the brush may be used for several strokes before requiring another dip into the paint. Unfortunately, the very characteristic which makes a brush more desirable for the application of paint also makes the brush somewhat more difficult to clean. Since the paint is held within the bristle interstices, there is a tendency for the brush nearest to the handle to dry along the outer surfaces that are exposed to the air. Removal of this paint can be difficult. But, in addition to getting the dried paint off, there will also be a large amount of unused paint retained within the brush. Consequently, whether the paint is water-based or oil-based, the brush will require a large volume of appropriate cleaner or solvent just to remove the remaining wet paint that is held in the brush. This is, of course, before the dried-on paint can be removed. Even with a fairly rigorous cleaning, the brush will almost always still have some paint remaining, and over time and with more use, the brush will harden up and become useless. In the end, a diligent person will spend a great deal of time and cleaner cleaning up a high quality brush, only to still eventually throw the expensive brush away.
Another drawback with the traditional tools and methods of paint application is in the control of the amount of paint applied, and control over the surface finish. Most brush-applied paints are generally relatively thick, to avoid unwanted runs that might otherwise occur on a vertical wall immediately after a brush has been dipped into paint. In addition, thick paint will drip much less from the brush. However, this thicker paint invariably leads to the creation of a pattern of brush strokes that will remain even after the paint is dried. While brush strokes are desired in some instances to add texture, the painter rarely can control this, since thin paints will run and drip, and thicker paints retain the brush stroke. Moreover, with thicker paint the painter must pass the brush over the same area several times to ensure that all of the surface is covered. Otherwise, all too commonly there will be an occasional “streak” where the paint was either applied too thinly or not applied at all. As will also be apparent, the application of thicker paint also results in the consumption of a relatively large amount of paint. Where a color of great contrast is being used to cover another, a thick application may be desired. The converse, where there is little contrast between the two colors, often requires only a relatively thin coat of paint. Unfortunately, with a brush there is little control available.
Yet another drawback comes when a non-traditional surface is to be painted. For example, machinery such as automobiles, lawn equipment, wheel barrows and wagons, metal railings, stone, concrete, brick and mortar, and many other surfaces may require painting from time to time around a typical house. In some of these cases, a very thin and smooth coat of paint is highly desirable, such as on a typical smooth metal surface. In contrast, a very thick coat of paint is often desirable on a very rough surface, such as on concrete or bricks and mortar. Again, with a brush there is little control available.
There have been a number of well-received inventions more recently which have overcome some of the foregoing deficiencies of traditional painting. For example, there have been a number of new paint applicators that have been developed that give a homeowner more control over the thickness, and even the texture, of a coat of paint. Among these applicators are the various paint rollers and paint pads that have various “naps” or applicator surfaces that will hold more or less paint, and may be designed to form varying textures during application. Nevertheless, these various applicators still rely upon paint storage cans and interstices of one form or another within the applicator. In addition, and in spite of the many new applicators that have been developed, homeowners still invariably resort to brushes to form at least a part of the set of painting tools used for the relative simplicity and control found therein. Further compounding the problem is the knowledge that, when it comes to non-traditional surfaces, many of these more modern tools that are used to apply coats of paint are unsuited to these non-traditional surfaces. While improved can seals and geometries have also been developed, these fail to resolve the problems of long term storage within a paint can.
Commercial paint sprayers overcome many limitations of prior art applicators and typically enable an operator to apply large volumes of paint rapidly, with substantial control over the fineness and density of the spray mist. These sprayers may simply use pressurized air, or may combine additional techniques such as electrostatic attraction and the like to further improve the control and quality of spray. Unfortunately, these commercial sprayers are generally quite expensive, often require special knowledge and training to operate, require more care to clean and store than an ordinary homeowner will provide, and require storage space that is already scarce in most homes. Consequently, few homeowners would consider investing in a commercial sprayer. Finally, these commercial paint sprayers rely upon cans or pails of paint which present the same problems with storage and aging as already described herein above.
In order to offer homeowners, hobbyists and the like a greater range of flexibility than paint rollers, brushes, pads, and the like, and to more closely emulate the quality obtained by a commercial paint sprayer, manufacturers have developed various paint spray cans over the last half-century that combine paint with propellant in a self-contained can. These spray cans have met with much commercial success, since they provide the homeowner a high quality paint spray without the burden of large storage space, high initial purchase prices, and maintenance. The homeowner or hobbyist will simply spray the desired paint, and then typically tilt the can upside down to release a small amount of propellant without paint, to clear the nozzle. Then the spray cap is replaced, and the can may be stored for great lengths of time. With more modern valves and propellants, such paint cans may be stored for many years and then re-used with results in both color and quality unchanged by time.
However, these spray cans differ from the commercial sprayers in several important and undesirable ways. Spray cans are practically limited to operation in either an on or off mode, and the user cannot readily control or vary the amount of spray discharged. The pattern produced by the nozzle, the rate of discharge, and the desired particle size are each selected by the paint manufacturer, and none are readily changed or controlled by the painter. In addition, and as an undesirable side-effect of the ease of use of a spray can, when a child gains access to the can much harm may be done.
A number of artisans have worked with and improved upon the basic spray can construction, the teachings of each reference identified herein below which will be understood to be incorporated herein by reference. Representative of these is U.S. Pat. No. 2,598,308 by Samuels et al, entitled “Controllable Spray Dispenser”, which illustrates a spray device with three positions, “Automatic Continuous Spray”, “Push Button Spray”, and “Locked Position”. This apparatus comprises a special cap that fits on an aerosol can, where the cap is made to slide upon a protruding nozzle. A slot in the cap causes the cap to slide up or down respective to the central valve. When the cap is in the locked rotational position, the cap will hit the can to prevent the central valve from being activated. When the cap is in the automatic position, a projection hits the rubber diaphragm of the valve because of force exerted between the slot in the cap and the protruding nozzle, activating the valve. It does not, however, disclose the concept of a floating index, a pin guided track for spray selection, and it will not work with modern spray cans.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,729,120 by Sette et al, entitled “Childproof relockable actuator overcap,” and 3,844,448 entitled “Valve actuating safety cap assembly for pressurized dispensers” disclose a two-part cap that provides locking in a spray cap. While the caps illustrated therein provide adjustable spray settings, the cap is not durable, owing to the geometries of construction, and will become contaminated with paint on the top surface due to splatter and the like. Finally, since the interior and exterior sections must rotate relative to each other and there is no manual access to the interior section, the cap is not readily manually adjusted and there will be a tendency for the interior and exterior to rotate together.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,387,911 by Focht discloses a pin guided track, in association with a dispenser, for dispensing such materials as stain removers, hair coloring foam, shoe polish, dye, cleaning agents, shaving foam, and the like. The track is useful for controlling the amount of product being dispensed, but fails to provide any accommodation for factory or aftermarket misalignment. Another configuration is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,029,862 by Jones, entitled “Selectable Rate Actuator for Spray Cans”, which describes a commonly sold trigger attachment for aerosol cans that can be operated to lock the trigger from activating the aerosol spray, lock the trigger in an activated position for continuous spray, or unlock the trigger for short bursts of spray controlled by a spring assembly. Unfortunately, the Jones invention does not balance the can well, leading to significant operator fatigue. Further, the Jones invention does not readily store directly with the spray can, mandating either repeated assembly and disassembly from a spray can or causing substantial interference with the storage and access of individual spray cans.
Other patents disclosing locking spray devices have also been disclosed, including U.S. Pat. No. 3,632,024 by Usen; U.S. Pat. No. 3,721,423 by Shay; U.S. Pat. No. 3,860,149 by Hagianis; U.S. Pat. No. 5,957,337 by Bettison; U.S. Pat. No. 4,773,567 by Stoody; U.S. Pat. No. 4,542,837 by Rayner; U.S. Pat. No. 5,971,230 by Tanaka; U.S. Pat. No. 4,065,036 by Kirk Jr; U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,854 by Bierend et al; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,126,044 by Smith. Patents that disclose centrally rotating control of spray nozzles on aerosols include U.S. Pat. No. 5,385,303 by Gosselin et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,345,775 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,896,205 by Purvis II et al.
Other patents of interest include U.S. Pat. No. 2,887,273 by Anderson et al; U.S. Pat. No. 3,178,077 by Benedetto; U.S. Pat. No. 3,284,007 by Clapp; U.S. Pat. No. 3,848,778 by Meshberg; U.S. Pat. No. 3,894,665 by Swenson; U.S. Pat. No. 4,440,325 by Truehaft et al; U.S. Pat. No. 3,088,679 by Ford; U.S. Pat. No. 3,180,536 by Meshberg; U.S. Pat. No. 3,305,144 by Beres et al; U.S. Pat. No. 3,363,968 by Williams; U.S. Pat. No. 5,027,986 by Heinzel et al; U.S. Pat. No. 5,110,231 by Monteith et al; U.S. Pat. No. 5,337,926 by Drobish et al; U.S. Pat. No. 5,540,359 by Gobbel; U.S. Pat. No. 5,639,026 by Woods; U.S. Pat. No. 6,062,432 by Estrada; U.S. Pat. No. 6,382,527 by Dukes et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,446,842 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,633 by Stern et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,564,977 by Uemura et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,655,607 by Vazquez; U.S. Pat. No. 6,758,373 by Jackson et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,866,165 by Heathcock et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,874,663 by Scheindel; U.S. Pat. No. 6,877,643 by Schneider; U.S. Pat. No. 6,899,253 by Uemura et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,926,172 by Jaworski et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,932,244 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,971,552 by Meshberg; and U.S. Pat. No. 7,017,785 by Lasserre et al.
In spite of the substantial consideration and development that has occurred through the years, these patents are deficient in being capable of adequate operation with modern spray cans, in occupying minimal space, in functioning with the simplicity of a standard spray can, and in other manners that will become apparent.